What's the point if we can't get past 2050?
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5198 readers
1160 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We're quite likely to make it past 2050.
Limits to growth is wrong then? Is there enough oil and copper at the current rate?
Unfortunately we do still have a lot of oil reserves for like a ~~100~~ 47 years. Without oil we'd be forced to massively reorganize global trade and how we live and work.
yes, that's the problem. We may still have 47 years of oil left (I think we have less), but the cost to extract it will rise, and the economy will take a hit. So yes, we have to reorganize or we won't have to only think about the climate...
Yeah I also was thinking from another perspective another article:
As the world moves away from oil as an energy source, thanks to the shift to electric vehicles, according to BP's 2023 Energy Outlook Report, demand will likely plateau. In October 2023, for instance, the International Energy Agency said it expects oil use to have peaked by 2030, declining after that.
That means we could have enough oil for far longer than the longstanding 50-year projection.
So the status quo for things like tankers and big container ships needed for the current global trade and economic imperialism and also big warships and aircraft carriers and jet powered fighter drones probably won't change for a long time.
So there could be "business as usual or worse" for a long time. Or climate fueled conflicts could disrupt global trade and oil delivery much sooner leading to more conflicts. I guess you could make long term plans for such possibilities.
That goes beyond the climate issue. OP is referring to climate.
if you don't have enough copper to transition to renewable energy, and don't have enough oil to continue, you're in for some fun times...
I'm aware of the Energy Transition challenge.
https://www.postcarbon.org/can-civilization-survive-these-studies-might-tell-us/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926
Just saw this nice paper that goes to 2300:
Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions critical to limit climate tipping risks https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49863-0
Under current emission trajectories, temporarily overshooting the Paris global warming limit of 1.5 °C is a distinct possibility. Permanently exceeding this limit would substantially increase the probability of triggering climate tipping elements. Here, we investigate the tipping risks associated with several policy-relevant future emission scenarios, using a stylised Earth system model of four interconnected climate tipping elements. We show that following current policies this century would commit to a 45% tipping risk by 2300 (median, 10–90% range: 23–71%), even if temperatures are brought back to below 1.5 °C. We find that tipping risk by 2300 increases with every additional 0.1 °C of overshoot above 1.5 °C and strongly accelerates for peak warming above 2.0 °C. Achieving and maintaining at least net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2100 is paramount to minimise tipping risk in the long term. Our results underscore that stringent emission reductions in the current decade are critical for planetary stability.